The Antlerette Volume 96 Issue 1 by theantlerette

The Antlerette Volume 96

August 2021

Issue 1

Living Off the Grid Trisha Tran, Staff

In our current society, a popular dream is to be famous and surrounded by people. However, there is a group of individuals who want to do the exact opposite. Seemingly a completely isolating and dangerous desire, many adventurers and sustainability advocates have turned to live away from the masses and that trend continues to grow. Under the name “off-the-grid living”, these nature-lovers have dedicated themselves to living with limited to no modern technology, separated from society, and being self-sufficient. These people find themselves populating the rural outskirts of the U.S. and across the globe in regions, such as Australia, Italy, and other parts of Europe. The motivations span from pure personal curiosity to environmental statements and reveal the reality that off-the-gridliving is not as intimidating as you may think. The phrase “off-the-grid living” is derived from the process of electricity being distributed in a grid. The lifestyle itself has a wide spectrum with some implementing self-generated electricity and others completely avoiding any current technology altogether.

It is obvious that off-grid-living seems like going back in time and undoing advancements in society. It is a significant risk to leave the life we’ve been accustomed to for years and reenter nature’s competition for resources. However, off-grid-living has many upsides that can’t be found anywhere else.

Current advocates rave that this way of life teaches them the skills of hunting, fishing, and planting that they would never have learned living in regular civilian society. They no longer have to follow the mundane work schedules and the pressuring social expectations. Health is another leading reason why people flock to this concept. In nature, people are away from the polluted air and harmful chemicals that are found in the city. In addition to the regular activities of hiking and swimming, finding their own food and water keeps them fit with the extensive physical activity. This lifestyle certainly brings forth more opportunities for exercise than our current lives. Their typical, nutritious diets would include organic fruits and vegetables and other unprocessed foods, being much healthier than the eating habits of the masses. Mentally, people find themselves feeling more accomplished and refreshed in their everyday lives because of the stress-free and calming atmosphere. This lifestyle heavily emphasizes connecting with nature and being more aware of the environmental effects made by mankind. Their smaller carbon footprint is the direct result of only producing the resources that they will need and use. The purpose of living this way for some is to eliminate the use of plastic and other technologies that contribute to climate change, such as cars and power plants. To continue living this way long term, people have to be careful with their waste disposal and responsible accumulation of resources to ensure their future meals, leading to positive, eco-friendly changes compared to those living the conventional lifestyle.

Now, off-grid-living is even more accessible with internet resources. Many of those who live off-grid have documented their lives or offered tips and tricks through videos and blogs. Bushradical, also known as Dave Whippie, produces videos on Youtube about homesteading, or self-sufficiency, in Alaska. He has amassed a following of over 400,000 subscribers with his biggest hit video, Simple off grid Cabin that everyone can build & afford, which has accumulated about 8.3 million views. His channel and other blogs have created welcoming communities with the same goals from around the globe, eliminating the concern of off-grid-living depriving people of social contact. Off-grid-living is clearly not a lifestyle for everyone, but it isn’t as extreme as people may think. The overall consensus of all off-the-griders is that although substantial amounts of work and knowledge is required to follow this lifestyle, the idea of a simple life is the greatest payoff.

WandaVision and Grief Benjamin Carrillo, Editor In Chief

WandaVision is easily one of the most popular shows in the United States right now, as currently it has surpassed 550 million streams on Disney+, and is up for countless nominations in multiple awards shows. The 10 part miniseries explores the psyche of the Marvel character Wanda Maximoff, and her dealing with the grief caused by the death of her lover, Vision. At its core this show is so much more though, showing Wanda's grief through a beautiful sitcom homage, and each episode plays up the tropes that are seen in real-life beloved sitcoms like The Brady Bunch and Modern Family. This wonderful show that explores death and the stages of grief could teach the world a beautiful lesson on what it means to lose someone. Before reading further I’d like to quickly stress a massive spoiler warning. If you haven’t seen WandaVision I advise doing so before reading. Wanda Maximoff starts off this journey by going to the place where she was meant to grow old with her lover, Vision. This happens after the traumatic event of losing her lover and in her eyes the last person who truly was family to her, as she lost her brother 2 years prior and was orphaned at a young age due to a terrorist attack. Wanda’s grief is what defines her character, and is a huge drive for this show. Despite the character of Wanda being a superhero with insane amounts of power, and Vision being a sentient robot with human emotions, we feel for these two as if they were normal human beings, and writer Jac Schaeffer achieved this by deconstructing the feeling of grief through Wanda.

Wanda doesn’t know how to continue anymore, and through her powers makes this new world where she’s living the ideal sitcom life, no issues continue after those 30 minutes of screentime, and her lover Vision is still alive. This new world creation is problematic, however, as it makes Wanda unwillingly the villain as she unknowingly brainwashes and kidnaps the town she created her sitcom world in. But despite these abhorrent acts, the show knows not to paint Wanda as the villain, and instead, Schaeffer and the rest of the writers go out of their way to show that Wanda didn’t know what she had done. And as best put by one of the characters Monica, who lost their mother, “I would’ve done the same if I had your power set.”

She would’ve done the same. Hell, it’s not a reach to assume that anyone who has lost a loved one would’ve done the same--make an ideal world to escape the harsh reality of loss. But by the end of the show, Wanda learns a powerful lesson in grief. It only makes you stronger. In the show this is demonstrated through Wanda literally unleashing new powers she didn’t know were possible for her. But these powers are just a metaphor for what happens when anyone experiences grief and comes out on the other side--they become stronger and better, and like Wanda with Vision, that memory is of course still there. But the perseverance and life lessons are there too. Wanda's grieving period is far from over, but her period of letting the grief consume her and halt her life is over. This beautiful symbolic message can be seen through the end credits of WandaVision itself. The final scene shows Wanda literally in a new setting we’ve never seen, unleashing her new powers. While we as normal human beings don’t have powers like the insanely powerful Wanda, what we do have is the same amount of emotions. While maybe some of us haven’t yet felt the same amount of grief Wanda has, everyone will inevitably lose something in their lifetimes. And while it sucks, the 10 part miniseries can teach us all that grief is more than just a feeling, it's a sadness that consumes

and eats at you, taking over your life for a while and making you want to simply escape into your own sitcom, where your issues aren’t real and get resolved after 30 minutes. But you persevere, you can escape the relentless sadness and never forget the memories you have of someone. Grief never goes away, the memories of course never go away. But the feelings of consuming sadness will pass, and you’ll naturally come out of the other side a stronger person, who’s adapted to their grief and persevered masterfully. WandaVision is a must-watch show for anyone who has an appreciation for sitcoms or wants to feel seen as a human when talking about grief.

Princess Mononoke and Climate Change

Alyson Coles, Staff

The study of climate change is much older than many realize (accurate information on greenhouse gases has been known as early as the 1860s, primarily through the work of John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius), but it really picked up speed in the late 1970s. Around this time, the Charney Panel was just starting its research on the atmosphere, climate modeling was being developed, and Hayao Miyazaki, one of the founders of Studio Ghibli, was bouncing between animation companies looking for his big break. By the time he had founded Studio Ghibli and released the movie Princess Mononoke (1997), more knowledge had been unearthed regarding the state of the world. Now, the story and theme of Princess Mononoke can teach us some well-needed lessons about how humans as a whole treat the world we live on. Princess Mononoke follows the estranged prince Ashitaka as he travels west looking for a way to lift a curse brought on him by a boar-god-turned-demon. The boar became a demon because of an iron ball that was supposedly fired into his body by a human from Iron Town. This curse sets up Ashitaka’s main goal: for man and nature to be at peace. Throughout almost the whole movie though, they are at war, with each side committing and suffering from atrocities. The figureheads of man and nature are Lady Eboshi (the leader of Iron Town) and San “the wolf girl”, respectively, who are constantly in opposition. Their history of the conflict is long and distraught, and though both believe that the destruction of the other would bring them prosperity, it is clear that the opposite is true.

Similarly, people in the real world haven’t hesitated to exploit the environment for economic success. Between 1769, the year that the first steam engine was patented, and 2013, CO2 levels have risen by 120 parts per million, all due to industrialization and human activities. CO2 and greenhouse gasses in general (like methane and water vapor) aren’t inherently bad for the environment, but they pose a problem when they exist in the atmosphere in such great quantities. Greenhouse gases are selectively absorptive, meaning that they allow the light energy that comes into the atmosphere from the sun to pass through, but they absorb the infrared energy that is bounced back from earth. The infrared energy is then released back into the atmosphere in all directions, which traps some of it in the atmosphere. If there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the average temperature would be an uninhabitable 0 degrees C, but if there were too much, the opposite would occur. And if we don’t cut back on our emissions of greenhouse gases now, that is exactly what will happen. The effects of the saturation of greenhouse gasses aren’t pretty. We’re experiencing some of them right now-the fires, floods, heatwaves, the rising sea levels. And that’s why now is the time to act. When the Forest Spirit’s head was shot clean from their body by Lady Eboshi, and all seemed lost, Ashitaka saw it as a last chance to make things right. By offering the Spirit’s head back to them and reviving the forest, Ashitaka, and everyone else, learned something about the relationship between man and nature. One cannot thrive without the other. Climate change is a deadly iron ball shot into the stomach of the earth, but with compassion and peace, we can heal it.

What Should Big Tech Do About Climate Change? Ryan O’Sullivan, Content Editor

Climate Change is an issue we hear about all too often in the news today. We constantly see news articles about how it is intensifying, what we should do to combat it, etc… However, I do not think we take a close enough look at who is behind the commercials and advertisements that discuss this issue. I am not saying that we should treat the Earth with blatant disregard and we should not be mindful about our carbon footprint, I am saying that the big companies should be just as, if not more, mindful. If every single human being on the Earth right now reduced their carbon footprint to zero, we would only rid our planet 5% of all emissions. This is simply due to the fact that you could never use a recycle bin for the rest of your life, drive a Hummer, and run your utilities 24/7, and you would not even come close to the impact that events such as spilling 130 million gallons of oil into the Gulf Coast have had on our ecosystem. Google will give you an ad that suggests you should drive an electric car, but could you really trust Google to portray that information given the fact that their data centers generate 7 grams of carbon dioxide per Google search? Or, can you really trust that Jeff Bezos actually cares about the environment when in 2018 Amazon emitted nearly 44.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide? I am not trying to make a scapegoat out of any company; rather, I am trying to convey that it is frustrating when someone like a dairy farmer, who outsources to small towns is told that he should not be raising cows due to the downside of their greenhouse gas emissions by someone who won’t even acknowledge the hypocrisy big corporations have when it comes to climate change.

At the end of the day, we are only given one planet and it is our job to treat it in a kind and responsible manner, but I am in no position to have such an effect on the earth that some of these big corporations have had. Then, for them to sweep that under the rug and tell me to buy a Prius is just unacceptable. I am in a position to only take climate change as seriously as the higher-ups will, because no matter what I do, I cannot control 95% of emissions worldwide.

How Social Media Affects Self-Esteem

Diana Cruz, Staff

People on social media all around the world are hurting themselves by comparing themselves to others. Social media is not a mirror. It is not going to tell you who you are and whom you look like or will become because only you decide that. Everyone is unique and different in their own way. Today, with social media, it is all about popularity: how many followers you have, and how many likes you get. People mostly in their late teens and early twenties see others like themselves with millions of followers, millions of dollars, and they think that since they don’t have those numbers they must be failing, or they must be doing something wrong. This naturally tends to lower self-esteem, causing mindsets like you aren't enough because you don’t look like these influencers on social media. The reality is you shouldn’t look like them, you should look like you. You shouldn’t be ashamed of who you are because you’re here for a reason. Everyone is. Social media was never meant to lower your self-esteem; it was never meant for competition. It was supposed to be for keeping up with friends and family. Having low self-esteem makes you feel small and sometimes invisible. We all deserve to get up, stand tall, and walk with confidence. The opinions of others don’t matter unless you make them. You have control. It's impossible to look like these celebrities and influencers because they have hair and makeup crews and use app enhancers. They set the bar too high for the average person to reach. This lowers our self-esteem because the impact of negative comments compared to positive comments is crazy. We’re too controlled by the negative and don’t focus enough on the positive.

That is you giving the power of the negative comments, giving the writer satisfaction. Don’t compare yourself and be confident because you’re the one with the power.

What Happened in Afghanistan? Maiya Lopez, Copy Editor

August 30th, 2021, U.S. troops finally exit Afghanistan after a 20-year occupation, leaving the country in the hands of the Taliban, an Islamic fundamentalist group. This left many thinking, what now? What will become of the citizens of Afghanistan? Will they once again have to fear for their lives? The Taliban was formed by Islamic guerilla fighters, who had resisted the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the early 1990s. They attracted much support by promising to establish balance after years of conflict between rival groups. They seized Kabul from the then-president of Afghanistan, President Burhanuddin Rabbani in 1996. Later that year, they proclaimed Afghanistan to be an Islamic emirate. At that point, they had control over 90% of the country. Under their rule, social services and basic state functions were heavily ignored. At the same time they enforced unnecessary and even cruel laws like requiring women to wear the head-to-toe burqa, or chadri, banned music and television, and even jailed men whose beards it deemed too short. However, U.S. troops overthrew the Taliban in 2001, and have occupied the country since. Now, with troops being withdrawn from Afghanistan under U.S. President Joe Biden’s call, they have taken back control over the country. Many say it's very likely the Taliban will impose harsh rule, like they had years before, despite the fact they promised otherwise. A huge concern is how women will be treated under Taliban rule. It seems women’s rights and freedom of speech are in jeopardy. Thousands of Afghans have tried to escape the country, along with the rule of the Taliban. The UN refugee agency has said that more than half a million Afghans

could flee by the end of the year. With thousands of citizens fearing for their lives, we can only wait to see what turn the Taliban will take. Will they return to their old, harsh, unjust way of governing, or will they keep their promise and acknowledge their people’s basic human rights.

How to Soften Butter Greg Santos, Design Editor

If you’re a living human, you enjoy food to some extent. Since you love food, I would make an assumption that you probably love butter as well, maybe because of how good it is when spread on bread from Italian restaurants. Many people actually melt butter, but the chef-instructor of pastry and baking, Kathryn Gordon, says that melting butter can negatively affect your dish. Softening butter correctly is crucial since the butter could affect the texture and shape of the food you crave. So let’s walk through how to utilize butter to enhance your food to new levels of taste. First things first, you have to make sure your butter is the right consistency for baking or cooking. Kathryn Gordon recommends an easy way to test it out claiming “If you put your clean finger against it, it’ll smush a bit and move”. She then goes on to say how it should be somewhere in between spreadable soft and freezer firm. But there are numerous ways you could soften the butter. One way you can is by cubing it and mixing electrically. This happens to be Gordon’s personal favorite method. Use a knife or bench scraper to cube the amount needed for the portions. Expose it to more air if you wish for it to reach room temperature quickly. Another way is to pound it with a rolling pin. Gordon says this is a very effective method. After covering your sticks of butter with plastic wrap, get it to move and flatten by smashing it with a rolling pin.

The last way that I personally recommend is to just simply grate it. I enjoy this method because it shapes the butter small enough to soften very fast. The technique is simple: use the largest size on the grater and slice the tips of butter into smaller portions. Avoid touching the butter while doing this method, because your hands may be warm enough to melt the butter. Softening butter is a technique that requires slightly more skill than previously considered, as melting the butter is not what we want. Next time you bake, remember the important techniques to make your baking life easier in the long run.

Trandsgender Athletes In The Olympics Klaus Curtis, Staff

The Olympics--some people participate, most just watch. But what about transgender people? Are they allowed to participate, do they have special guidelines, how different are they treated? Should they have different guidelines? What would happen if they go under hormonal therapy, will that make it unfair for them or others? In the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, any male-female person had to undergo hormone therapy and have her testosterone levels under a specific amount. Whereas any female-male person didn't have to change anything and was allowed to compete “un-restricted”. In the 2020 Olympics, there were 6 openly LGBT+ athletes. Transgender athletes have been able to compete ever since the Athens Olympics in 2004, although not many were openly transgender due to discrimination. In the 2020 Olympics, there were 2 openly non-binary competitors, Quinn, and Alana Smith. They were misgendered on news, and at the top of the page where their gender was stated, it was reported as female. The guidelines for transgender individuals have varied a lot since they were first allowed to compete in 2004. At first, they were required to have had gender correction surgery, or hormonal therapy for 2 years prior to competition. Now if they are male-female, she must have a certain level of testosterone, around 10 nanomoles for 1 year before competition. For female-male, he is allowed to participate ‘unrestricted with no different requirements than an average athlete.

Transgender individuals have been discriminated against in just about anything and everything they do. Although it is nice to know that with the Olympics they have fewer restrictions for transgender people than last year. Yet with all the improvements made in recent years, many intersex people can’t participate at an international level due to a high testosterone count. If these people wish to compete internationally they must undergo surgery or take medication to lower their levels. Similiar discrimination is shown in women's rugby, where they banned all trans women from competing due to ‘safety concerns’. But I ask, do the athletes not know what sport they are signing up for? Do they understand the possibility of serious injury? They want to compete on an Olympic level in the sport they chose. Why should someone else decide what is too dangerous for an individual? Let that person decide for themselves.

Good vs Bad Queer Rep in Media Cameron Cain, Staff

During quarantine, some new shows have tried their hand at adding queer characters to their story and while some of these shows had good intentions with their queer representation, others used their queer characters as an attention grabber for their queer audience. Two examples of this would be The Owl House and the Loki show, where the main characters, Amity and Luz as well as Loki and Sylvie are canonically queer. The Loki show is set outside of time; however, Loki was taken to the TVA from 2012, and The Owl House is set in current time, taking place in the Demon Realm or Boiling Isles. Representation, specifically good representation, is incredibly important in showing and teaching kids or even teens that being queer is okay and that they aren’t alone. Misrepresentation can fail to teach that lesson and can even spread misinformation, which is dangerous and hurtful towards the community. The Loki show, however, failed on this front and while the representation in the show isn’t the worst or blatantly homophobic, it’s still an issue that needs to be addressed. In the show both Loki and his variant (a version of him from a different timeline) are canonically bi and genderfluid, however, neither of their gender fluidity is ever mentioned or shown in the show. The only mention of it is a small detail on a file where Loki’s sex reads “fluid” rather than “male”. On top of that, Loki’s variant is a woman, Sylvie, so it seems the show writers thought including an “opposite sex” variant would be enough to count as genderfluid representation. On the topic of Loki and Sylvie being bisexual, however, they do actually mention it in the show. But it is only mentioned once and never shown, and as the nail in the coffin, Loki and Sylvie share a kiss in the final episode of

season one, putting him in a straight-passing relationship with essentially himself. On the other hand, The Owl House does really well in writing their queer characters. Currently, The Owl House has six canonically queer characters, two of which are main characters. In season one episode 16, it is revealed that Amity has a crush on Luz and in season two episode 5 Luz is shown to share those feelings, with the two of them getting together at the end of episode 8. Dana Terrace, the writer of The Owl House, has confirmed that Luz is bisexual and Amity is a lesbian, but any other queer character hasn’t been confirmed as a specific label. They are shown to have a healthy relationship, everyone around them being accepting of their queerness. Along with representing wlw (women loving women) relationships The Owl House also has a nonbinary character, Raine, who is shown to use they/them pronouns on screen, the character being voiced by a nonbinary actor, Avi Rogue. In flashback scenes, it is also revealed that Eda used to date Raine, meaning Eda is also a canonically queer character. It’s important to recognize the good and the bad representation in media. Representation is so important in teaching people, especially young kids, that being different is okay and that they still matter. This extends past queer representation to the representation of all people. A lack of representation and an abundance of misinformation hurts all minorities.

Horse Abuse and the Practice of Soring Sydney Wesselink, Staff

The practice of soring is something not talked about much since it was made illegal by the Horse Protection Act of 1970. When a horse is sored, its legs are wrapped in chemicals putting them in excruciating pain. To increase it, stacked shoes are applied to the horse’s front hooves that have followed by a chain on the legs which causes more irritation. This is to increase a high animation gait called the big lick. The Tennessee walking horse, racking horse, and the spotted saddle horses are common victims. This happens to horses in dressage competitions, such as the National Tennessee Walking Horse Celebration, and others. The USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, can't send someone to ever show holding Tennessee walking horses or racking horses. To protect these gentle giants. they have a system allowing horse industry organizations to license people letting them check on all horses for signs that they’ve been sored before competing. Horses that are sored are usually stalled all hours of the day and you can expect them to be laying down. You can tell if a horse has been sored if the horse is standing with its front legs close together with most weight on its back legs. Other signs are scars or hair loss on the lower legs, if the horse refuses to get up for long periods of time, has trouble walking, or falls are all signs of soring. What can you do? If you see a horse with these signs, you can report to the USDA, or if you’re ever looking to buy a horse or know someone who is, I would suggest getting a Tennessee walking horse or racking horse. They are one of the

best horses for trail rides and beginners, or for someone that wants a sweet calm horse. The thought of a horse that could potentially get bought by a competitor that uses soring to win is appalling. You could be saving a horse's life.

Why We Should Leave Snakes Alone in the Wild Ethen Lyon, Staff

Every day, multiple people die from snake bites. About 200 people die each day from them, but what is the root cause of this? People refuse to leave snakes alone in their natural habitats. Snakes often live in the bushes and brush near homes due to the fact that they have nowhere else to go. Instead of leaving them be, people try to get them away, which usually results in the said person getting bit. This could obviously be avoided in one easy way, simply leave the snakes alone. Snakes are forced to live above ground most of the time. Snakes aren’t able to go underground due to all the human infrastructure underground, taking up a lot of the space that snakes and other animals need as their homes. Because of this, they are forced to live above ground in bushes or near brush. Of course, humans being humans, do not care, and they act as though they are better than snakes. Because of this, they enter their homes, taking and doing whatever they wish; however, the snakes do their best to defend themselves, and sometimes their eggs, and they will attack humans. Snakes are simply acting out of defense. They aren’t animals that are attacking just for the fun of it. The notion that snakes are inherently malicious is simply incorrect. makes are attacking out of a place of fear. Unless a snake is starving, which isn't likely, it will not attack unless it fears for its life and safety. But of course, most humans will still blame the snakes, saying that they lashed out and that it is their fault. If humans would simply respect snakes and their homes, it would save people a

a lot of pain and death. But humanity is ignorant to this. It’s in human nature to take over as much as they can, to rule over anything and everything possible. Unfortunately for them, animals fight back. In conclusion, humans are destructive creatures that need to get their acts in check and realize that what they do to the environment is harmful. Until then, people will continue dying and getting hurt by snakes and other animals. Snakes aren't pests; they're simply trying to defend themselves. For some reason, that idea is extremely hard for a lot of humans to understand.

Sacramento Kings Offseason Options Grayson Bloodworth, Staff

The 2021 NBA offseason has already been pretty dry for the Sacramento Kings, with all that's happened to be the acquisition of Tristan Thompson and the resignings of Terence Davis, Moe Harkless, and Richaun Holmes. The Kings are looking for another piece to add to their already great roster. They are on the brink of a deep playoff run. As we've seen these past two years, they've been getting closer and closer to that 8th seed. They would surely have had that spot in the Eastern Conference, but they are in the tougher, more prominent Western Conference. The Kings already have solid backcourt with borderline All-Star De’Aaron Fox, three-point champion Buddy Heild, last year's runner-up Rookie of the Year Tyrese Haliburton, and the steal of a #9 pick Davion Mitchell. What they lack though is depth in their frontcourt. As good as Richaun Holmes and Harrison Barnes are, they need another piece. The two best options are Lauri Markanen and Ben Simmons. A low seeded playoff spot might be possible if one of the two of these players can be acquired. Lauri Markkanen has many aspects of his game that would be very beneficial if he were added to the Kings roster. He is a great shooter, especially from the perimeter. He shot 36% from the three-point line last season, averaging 2.3 3 pointers a game on 5.8 attempts. He’s not just a great catch-and-shoot player like most other good shooting big men, he excels at creating space and making difficult shots on the move; though, he is only an adequate shooter off the dribble due to the lack of a quick first step. He also is a great low post scorer and a

solid rebounder with a rock-solid motor and great size for any frontcourt. However, he doesn’t always fully commit to the boards and lacks confidence in that aspect of his game. He is a smart player and has a great feel for the game, paired with his good defense and great shooting. But there are some negatives to his game. Although a great shooter, he has been very streaky throughout this last season. He can also be very passive on offense and that passiveness leads to him being careless with the ball as we’ve seen, which leads to turnovers. He doesn't always commit to the boards and the Kings need someone who is ruthless and confident in the paint. He also needs to get a little bit stronger if he wants to match up with other big men in the paint and have a chance at winning the possession. Now, even after one of the most disappointing playoff performances in recent playoff history, Ben Simmons is still a top 25 player in the league. He has great size at 6-10 and the athleticism that is paired with that size is unmatched. He is one of the great high-flying players in the league currently. For his size, his ball-handling skills are some of the best this league has ever seen. He is very familiar with the game of basketball and knows it very well. His court vision is up there with the top point guards in today's NBA. He is also one of the better passers in basketball. Another positive is his versatility. He can play and guard every position on the floor. Although very good at many things, Ben Simmons very clearly has some holes in his game. He quite notably lacks a jump shot, which is very crucial in today's NBA. He is a horrendous shooter from the perimeter and pretty awful in the midrange. He also lacks the length of other players his size. He only has a plus 2 wingspan when coaches are usually looking for that plus 5 and up. Ben Simmons is very lazy in his game and does not put in the maximum effort like you would expect professionals to do. He is very turnover-prone due to his

laziness. His offensive game is very basic and gets most of his points almost exclusively in the paint. As we have seen, he is sometimes a bit of a stat hunter and needs the ball more than the Kings prefer. The acquisition of these players for the Kings is very different and both of them have effects if they want to keep them in the long run. At this point in time Lauri is a free agent, so Sacramento can sign him as soon as they want and he is not one of the higher paid players, so they could get him for less than he is truly worth. Ben Simmons is still signed with the Sixers and might not be super easy to acquire, but will be easier than in previous years due to his currently low trade value. Sacramento could package Buddy Heild and Marvin Bagley III, and some future draft picks to receive Ben Simmons in return.